The extra demands made of Army Reservists will necessitate longer absences
from the workplace

If the Government is to stand any chance of making a success of its radical restructuring of the Army, then it must count on both the willingness of reservists to make a deeper commitment to their part-time military careers, and the understanding of employers having to tolerate their staff being absent for long periods. Yesterday Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, sought to address the needs of both parties when he set out details of his plan to boost the number of territorials from its current level of 19,000 to 30,000 by 2018.

The reasoning behind the reservists’ enhanced role is that they will fill the gaps created by the dramatic cuts currently being made to the standing Army, which is in the process of seeing its numbers reduced from 102,000 to 82,000 as part of cuts to the defence budget. But getting part-time soldiers to fulfil the same duties as their regular counterparts is asking a lot, especially if, as is envisaged, they will be expected to fight side by side on combat missions. As part of the Coalition’s £1.8 billion overhaul, the Army Reserve, as the Territorial Army will in future be known, will receive the same equipment and training as its full-time colleagues, a level of commitment that is reflected in Mr Hammond’s pledge to reward its members with better provision for pensions, health care and holidays.

However, these extra demands will necessitate longer absences from the workplace, which in normal circumstances could amount to several months a year but, in times of conflict, might extend to a full year.

This will be a heavy burden for employers to bear, especially those running small companies where the absence of just one employee on sick leave can be detrimental. Mr Hammond is offering to pay small businesses £500 per month by way of compensation, but not even this sum is likely to cover the cost of a key employee obliged to undertake military service for a prolonged spell. Yet, as Mr Hammond made clear in his Commons statement, the ability of employers to object, or even penalise their staff, will be circumscribed, as the Government’s priority is to safeguard the reservists’ interests.

Clearly, there is a delicate balance to strike between protecting reservists and compensating employers for the disruption they suffer. General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the Army, yesterday suggested the proposed changes would give the new force a “fillip to its vibrance”. Certainly, there is no reason why these changes should not help to make the reservists’ contribution more relevant to the modern age. But for that to happen, reservists and employers must rise to the challenges that lie ahead.